I have no idea whether Democrats will advance President Biden's Social Security plan in this Congress. However, if it does start to advance, we're likely to see opposition of the sort put forward recently by Alicia Munnell of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. She is disappointed that the Biden plan doesn't solve Social Security's long term funding issues for the next 75 years!
Why is it essential or even important that all issues be solved until near the year 2100? First, any projections that far out are inherently unreliable so no plan can conceivable solve all issues this far in advance. Second, if it's important to solve problems that far in advance, why hasn't the Department of Defense already solved our national security issues for the next 75 years? Why adopt any plan to address global warming that doesn't solve the issue once and for all? We don't expect any other sort of legislation to solve problems 75 years into the future. Why should we expect Social Security legislation to do so?
Listening to people like Alicia Munnell would make any legislation impossible. Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.
8 comments:
The bar was set when Moynihan worked his deal with Reagan that began the slow death of SSA.
An even bigger gem is her suggestion that enhancements to the Social Security retirement benefit shouldn't be made to compensate for reductions in workers' 401(k) balances because most of had little or no money in their retirement accounts to begin with. In other words, why bother trying to enhance Social Security since these folks were already going to be destitute in retirement before they lost their jobs due to the pandemic?
So yeah, Biden's not thinking big enough when its comes to making sure the program is solvent for decades to come. But trying to enhance the program make sure it serves its purpose of providing real financial security in retirement? Well, that's full-on pie-in-the-sky fantasy, demonstrating that Biden needs to get his head out of the clouds and come back to earth.
Sadly, though, her Harvard doctorate, which demonstrates Ms. Munnell can sure see how idiotic and illogical this argument is, will only serve to increase the number of people who buy into this bull****.
There is a difference in things like national defense and financial planning. Do you make plans for your financial future or do you just hope it works out for you? Do you just max out your credit cards and hope you will have the money to repay them? Have you made any plans for your financial resources in retirement? By your logic, why do we even need social security? We'll just hope things work out okay in the future. We are spending ourselves into oblivion and no one is concerned.
@9:19
You are making a strawman. Nobody is saying don't plan for the future, but planning for actual circumstances 75 years in the future is impossible. To the extent people plan for retirement, they do not estimate their particular circumstances, they save a certain percentage of their income and hope that will cover their needs in retirement.
@9:19 AM
We're not "spending ourselves into oblivion." We've simply made a habit of collecting less and less tax revenue year over year from our wealthiest citizens and businesses, in part due to misguided fears that raising taxes will "kill jobs" and "kill small businesses," and in part because some have simply given up all hope of getting the wealthy to comply with the tax laws. So piss off with this kitchen-table deficit spending nonsense.
There's more than enough wealth in this nation to cover its expenses for centuries to come. We just need leaders who will stop listening to morons like Ms. Munnell, and stop licking the boots of the tiny fraction of our population that's been permitted to hoard ever-increasing piles of money. And to get there, we'll need voters to start thinking critically instead of letting Fox News and David Norquist spoon-feed them talking points.
Larsen's Bill (SOCIAL SECURITY 2100( would result in projections that keep the Social Security system solvent for the next 75 years at least with a small tax increase that raises benefits and an increase to eliminate the cap for those making over $400,000. It is not the only plan, nor in my opinion necessarily the best plan, but it is a very practical plan that has minimal costs and increases benefits especially for lower earners.
75 years is the metric that is used even if it is not entirely sensible because you are right, the idea that there is certainty in any such projection is just plain silly. But adopting Larsen's plan, which had over 200 co-signers in the last Congress (NO REPUBLICANS) is at least a good framework if any one is serous about making adjustments.
@10:40AM: You totally NAILED IT! Excellent comment, and oh so true!
Wonder if 75 years ago they thought the worker to recipient ratio would be where it is today?
Post a Comment